The Laura Ingalls Test

Today I was at Target and I saw something I thought I needed at a price I couldn't pass up: children's jeans for $10. My second grader and kindergartner have both outgrown about half of their wardrobes in this new year. They each have about five pair of school pants left, which are becoming more worn by the day. It makes sense to buy these high enough quality jeans and fill their wardrobe out a little. Yet I put them back and walked away (sadly).

At the same time, I have been reading the Laura Ingalls books--again--this time with my 7-year-old daughter, the one who 'needs' pants. In these books, the narrator repeatedly mentions having only one or two dresses each year, plus an old patched one from the year before to swim and play in. In this context, five pair of school pants, plus skirts, dresses, church clothes, and a drawer of play clothes, seems enough. Even excessive.

In the nineteenth century and before, consumer goods were made by intense labor. Growing cotton is hard on land and hard on workers. It had to be spun into thread and woven into cloth before Mrs. Ingalls spent hours cutting and sewing it into the garment her daughter would wear. The process hasn't changed a lot. We have some mechanization, and we have passed off the labor to the third world, but making garments is still a labor intensive activity.

Here's where the Laura Ingalls test comes in: imagine talking to Mrs. Ingalls and saying that you need to buy new clothing for a child that has five presentable outfits. She seems like a polite type, but she would certainly be surprised if not dismayed. If you are like many American families, you could also imagine telling her that your family is already in debt and that you might even put this purchase on credit as well. One hundred years ago, this would have been viewed as highly irresponsible.

This is an amusing mind game to play whenever you find yourself about to make an impulse buy at any price. Here's a less pleasant one. Picture yourself explaining the situation to a mother in the modern day third world instead. Her government accepted money from a US corporation to kick their family off their ancestral farm land, which is now being destroyed by cotton crops. With nowhere to live, she and her family moved to town, where the only way to survive is to work twelve hour days, seven days a week, in a factory where our $3 t-shirts are made. Even the toddlers. And they barely make enough to out rice and beans on the table once a day. This is the true story of our clothing, repeated over and over in every country you see on a clothing label after "Made In". Would she understand? They don't resent us because of George W. Bush. It goes farther and deeper than that.

This isn't a guilt trip. We aren't going to stop being Americans overnight, and neither will you. Just something to think about. Every decision we make is either supporting a very unfair, unpleasant status quo or helping to create a new one. So, I said no to the jeans. We'll find something fair trade or gently used before next year rolls around, and the kids will make their wardrobe last until then.

Yes, We Can...

...afford to eat better.

The professor in my argument class this quarter decided that our main focus should be health care because of the timeliness of the issue. Like we can't just flip on the television and hear about that--but whatever. We had to write several essays related to health care and have class-wide discussions on it.

My first essay focused on why our health care costs so much--more than twice what it does in other industrialized nations, in fact. The answer seems to be that we are sue-happy and, more important, very unhealthy due to a really crappy diet. Obesity and related problems create up to half of our national health care bill. That's not counting things like type 2 diabetes that are closely tied to but not entirely caused by obesity.

My second essay discussed how we can change this. I said that if we are really serious about it, we need to treat junk foods like another famously harmful substance: tobacco. According to my research, the average obese person has health care costs far exceeding a smoker. So why are we serving junk food in our school cafeterias? Why can people buy chips and soda with food stamps? Why don't we tax these foods and make them illegal on school campuses?

My teacher wrote a note on my paper suggesting that most Americans can't afford healthy foods. And I say: Yes, we can.

Convenience foods cost more than whole foods per pound, and they seem to be the culprits in our expanding waistlines. People think that dollar menus are cheaper than cooking, but are they really? Sure, it's hard to beat one dollar for a burger, but no one is getting fat from that two hundred calorie burger. They are getting fat from a larger, three or four dollar burger, along with two dollar supersized fries and a large Coke. A single value meal is around six dollars, about the cost for a healthy homemade dinner for your whole family.

People in third world countries eat better than we do and have lower rates of diet-related disease, because they can't afford our crappy diet. Americans have more expendable income than most Europeans, who also manage to eat better. Anyway, whole foods are cheaper than Frankenfood if you look beyond out of season pomegranates and radicchio. So it's counterintuitive to suggest that money is the issue.

I think time and laziness are the issue. I'm not saying fat people are particularly lazy, but that we all are in this country. Some people are blessed with metabolisms that can handle all the extra calories and the sedentary lifestyle, others are not so lucky. And none of us feel like dedicating an hour to cooking in the evening, although many of us do it anyway. It's easier, albeit more expensive, to just open a box. And therein lies the problem.

We do have the money--beans and rice are cheap. We do have the time as well, for the most part. Most people feel like they have no time, but when their favorite TV show comes on, suddenly time is in surplus. We spend time on the phone, time shopping for things we don't really need, time waiting in fast food lines. It's only when it comes time to throw the beans in the crockpot that we get all short on time. Suddenly we don't have even a minute, unless that minute is spent in a McDonald's drive-thru.

If you aren't working, or even if you are, you have time--as much or more time than I do, at least. We can eat healthy. Yes, we can. To borrow another famous tagline: just do it.

There are a few caveats here. If you are feeding yourself on less than $5 a week, then you will be relying on ultra-cheap, ultra-unhealthy foods like ramen. But you won't get fat... you'll have a hard time just getting enough calories to survive. Obesity comes from eating too much--way too much--for a period of years, not from spending a few tight months eating from a Styrofoam cup. Also, organics do cost more. But you won't get obese from eating a conventionally grown apple.

In one of our class discussions, a girl said she and her one year old live on fast food because she is too busy as a single mother to cook and she can't afford better food anyway. But she gets her nails done every week and has a constant flow of new clothes and Coach handbags. She has time and money to shop and watch someone airbrush her nails. Just not the time to eat healthy.

It's not her fault, either. Every time you turn on the TV, some expert is claiming that Americans are fat because we can't afford the money and time for a healthy diet. People are being encouraged to make unhealthy choices and told that they have no control over something as basic as what they put in their mouth. But we all have the choice. We all have the option to eat well. Say it with me: Yes, we can.

Solar Power

I'm in the middle of a huge writing project on solar power, which means I can't say much about it without plagiarizing myself. However, I can say this: I never realized how do-able making your own solar panels can be. There are a lot of options I have run into while researching my project that seem totally possible, even with my limited skills. I am especially interested in recycling broken solar panels--recycling and carbon-neutral power are two of my favorite things.

My children are really into this concept also. We've done a few solar science projects that have only whet their appetite for more. So, I am tossing around a few ideas right now. I'm thinking about trying to sell this as an article for a major magazine or a feature for a major TV show. After all, how many families decide to build their own solar panels?

I'll be sure to report back here when I have my thoughts on this a little more organized. Oh, and check back tomorrow for my ultra-green back-to-school post. I have made some cool stuff and even procured a few samples from the latest green kids' clothes companies.

Alternatives to Driving

Rising gas prices have led to a flood of articles on saving gas dollars, but most of them focus on things other than actually reducing your time on the road. Here are a few ways I am reducing my driving time.

1. Get to know your public transportation. If you aren't in a major city, it probably sucks. As in: it will take you twice as long to get anywhere. However, this is something that you can get used to. Consider: time that you drive is generally wasted time. You are not accomplishing anything. You are not making meaningful interactions. You're just burning fuel. When you are riding the bus, you can talk to your children, teach homeschooling lessons, make phone calls, pay bills, balance your checkbook, read a book, crochet Christmas gifts, mend socks, etc. The bus may take more time, but unlike driving time it can be productive.

2. Choose one or two days a week that you will drive. For us, it is currently Friday and Sunday. Friday is my errand day; Sunday is church day. I occasionally fall back on the car on other days for birthday parties, lessons, etc, but having two official driving days makes me really avoid driving on those other days.

3. Cut back to one car. It's easier than it sounds. My husband and I have always shared a car. In his old job, our kids walked to school and he took the car. I simply did without a vehicle during the ten or so hours he was gone. If I needed the car, I would drop him off and pick him up, but this wasn't really efficient. Later, when our children began going to a school farther away, my husband took our kids and some neighbor kids to the school on his way to work and the other mom picked them up after school. She thought she was getting off easy because she didn't have to get up as early.

My husband's job for the last several years required some driving, so his company provides one for work days, which eliminates the need for this kind of planning. It's made me lazy, but I'm trying to improve. When we homeschooled, I was getting really bad about spending all day in the car. I restricted my gas budget to $10 per week, and this helped me prioritize my driving.

Cutting back to one car is not just an eco-friendly decision, it is an economically positive one as well. Half the insurance, half the car payments, etc. Similarly, driving less will also save money. It's the way the rest of the world lives, and it's a decision that will probably be forced on us by finances in the near future. As Americans, we need to get used to the idea that oil isn't the answer to every problem.

Really? Boycotting Whole Foods?

I guess some people aren't as tolerant as they like to think they are.

The founder of Whole Foods--you know, the place I wish I could afford to shop and sometimes do anyway--recently wrote an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal. He didn't say anything controversial or extreme. He points out that there are a lot of problems with socialized health care in the countries that use it (like 1.8 million people currently on a waiting list in Great Britain for hospital care while we Americans could walk in any day of the week and get pissed off if we had to wait a few hours) and offers a few common sense alternatives.

In response, Democrats want you to boycott Whole Foods. A Facebook site has been set up completely misrepresenting what was written in the article (read the article at the link above and then visit the site to see what I'm talking about. It's pretty egregious). Some are even calling for people holding the stock to sell it so the price will go down, maybe taking the company with it.

I believe strongly in exercising your rights as a citizen in one of the first and last free speech/free economy nations on the globe. However, trying to destroy a company and the people who own its stock--a company that pioneered the free trade and organic movements, no less--because the founder calmly and respectfully expresses his opinion about a political issue and offers his ideas for a better solution... it seems very closed minded and intolerant. Extremist, in fact.

Why the vitriol? Is there no room for debate in the health care 'debate'?

Quantity vs. Quality

There is an artisan cheese store called Beecher's that I like to visit in Seattle. For just $20 or more dollars per pound, I can get mouthfuls of organic, homemade, local dairy pleasure.

People always give me stunned looks when I mention how much I will pay for certain food items. After all, in the US we like our food cheap. Because I am more frugal than most, my secret love of artisan cheese just doesn't add up.

I think the artisan cheese is actually a fine economic choice when you consider a few things. It is way healthier than most cheese. The grass fed cows and sheep produce milk with omega whatever acids and lower levels of bad fat. No hormones and garbage either. Dollar per dollar, I'm getting less calories but more nutrition, which is imperative with my fat jeans getting tighter by the millisecond. Plus, the cheese is rich and flavorful enough that I can eat it at a rate of about one bite per day. Last night my husband and I crumbled a little dry jack on our polenta. Today we'll mix some gorgonzola into a homemade vinaigrette.

Americans eat way too much food but spend less than, well, almost anyone in the world on groceries. This is because we are always looking for the cheapest way to get a plate full of meat. We aren't willing to buy legumes, and we won't pay more even if the better nutrition justifies it. We can afford to eat conventional meat and dairy in massive amounts because both are heavily subsidized by the American government. Healthy options, not so much.

We don't just east the wrong food, we eat way too freaking much of it. A typical French croissant is 1 1/2 ounces. An American Sara Lee croissant is 3 1/2 ounces. In Mexico, they use 5 inch tortillas to make quesadillas. Here we use ten inches. In most of Europe, the largest container of milk you can get is 1.5 liters. That's less than half a gallon. In other countries people eat better, but they eat way, way less. That's why we are the fatties of the planet.

We don't just eat more than other countries, we eat more than we used to. Here is a graphic depiction of fast food serving sizes now and just twenty years ago:

Personally, I think the government should tax unhealthy food and use that money to subsidize organic fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains. Maybe even make them free. Then I could feel like I am doing something magnanimous whenever I bust out the Cheetos. Plus, it would eradicate the need for food stamps, the school lunch program, and various other bureacracy- and waste-ridden programs. Anyway, if we are going to make socialized health care work, we will need a healthier population to keep the whole bloated barge afloat. Healthier diets is one step closer to that utopia we all want to live in.

Most people need to eat their ideal weight times ten calories per day. So, for an average American female, 1200-1300 calories per day. Wow. That's less than half of what most of us eat.

If you eat half the food, you'll be buying half the groceries. It leaves a lot of budgeting room for things like artisan cheese.

Negative Peer Pressure and Green Moms

Do you ever find yourself feeling like you need to hide exactly how green you are?

I certainly do, especially when we have houseguests. I put away the homemade cleansers so no one sees that I don't use the commercial antibacterial stuff. I make 'normal' meals, like meat tacos. I buy packaged foods for my cupboards. If asked, I describe my blog as a 'family' blog.

None of the words for people who embrace an ecofriendly lifestyle have positive connotations: hippy, crunchy. My personal favorite comes from a Chemistry classmate: "You are so granola." From there, it's all downhill. Activist, dirty, extremist, nutcase.

My houseguests are without exception wonderful people who would accept any weirdness I threw their way, but I feel the need to put on a show of how conventional I am. People have been trained by the media to think that our disposable lifestyles are cleaner and safer than the alternative. I don't want to have to sound like a perpetual Sierra Club ad and I don't want anyone to think they are going to be attacked by germs if they use my toilet. So I buy individually packaged granola bars instead of making my own and put the homemade laundry soap in an old Tide box.

People should feel guilty for not hanging things out, for not reusing, for pouring anti-bacterial crap into our waterways. Instead, I blush when the kids ask for falafel or when freecycling comes into the convo. I feel a little shame at cleaning with vinegar and old rags. wtf?

From now on, it's no more Miss Nice Mommy. My house is green, but it is as clean and comfortable as any other. It's time for all of us green mommies to be proud of who we are and what we stand for!

Modern Housewifery and the Green Movement

There was a time, just a century ago, when a typical housewife burned up to 9000 calories per day. They were up before dawn cutting wood for the morning fire and carrying water in buckets from a far-away well. Making pancakes for breakfast required collecting eggs, milking cows, and grinding wheat. I consider myself a productive person, but I don't accomplish in one day what these women did before their families even woke up.

The other day, I was reading one of my favorite homemaking sites. I realized that, unlike housewives of other times, the main duties of a modern hausfrau are cooking and procuring/managing goods. Sure, I clean, go to school, take care of my kids, and work when I can. However, the things that occupy much of my time are cooking, baking, organizing stuff, and making decisions about what new stuff my family needs. Like most women, like most modern people, I am not a producer. I am a consumer.

Americans are consumers on a mass scale, and that is why our food and consumption decisions are so important both politically and environmentally. It seems frivolous to micro-analyze every little decision, but those decisions will determine the type of consumer I am. Is local, organic lettuce worth a dollar more? Should I throw away my daughter's jeans with the blown-out knee, or can I find a way to make them wearable? Is it worth my energy to pick through thrift store racks when an organized Macy's is across the parking lot and doesn't cost a whole lot more? A lot of my life, and a lot of this blog, revolves around these seemingly insignificant choices.

In the end, my food is going to have a greater impact on the environment than my choice in cars. My decisions on what to buy will have a bigger effect on child labor in the third world than my voting. If you want to make a difference in your future quality of life, every consumer decision matters. Is it worth sweating the small stuff? I think it is.

Can WalMart Ever Be Green?

They think they can.

I'm not an eco-perfectionist, and I'm not going to pick on WalMart. We've all heard it before, and they must be doing something right because millions of people still work there and millions of people still shop there. However, I think even the most devoted WalMart shopper would balk at calling them green.

Consider: nothing gets to a WalMart without being carted over thousands of miles of blacktop. That's if it didn't have to be flown here before hitting the trucks. That $4 t-shirt may have more miles under its belt than Ferdinand Magellan.

Consider: undercutting local companies until they die away, then jacking prices up once there is no alternative is the WalMart policy. It's not an accident--it's how they operate.

Again, I'm not hatin'. Obviously millions of people approve, and that is their business. However, Wal-Mart is now trying, at least superficially, to 'go green'. They offer a range of 'green' products. Okay, I don't know exactly why a plastic bottle of toxic cleaning chemicals is now green--maybe that's its actual color. WalMart also is stepping into the realm of organic cotton products and other popular green accoutrements. It doesn't make them green; it makes them aware of the issues of their times.

However, they are actually leading the green movement in one arena: labeling. The way some stores label healthy choices, WalMart is going to start labeling green(er) choices. I don't know exactly what will make something a 'green' choice among the many choices in those crowded aisles, but if it gets more everyday people to buy into environmentalism, I guess it can't hurt anything.